The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s sentencing conditions compared with that of the first instance court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the lower court determined the sentencing within the reasonable scope of the lower court, given that there is no reasonable difference between the first instance court’s sentencing and the first instance court’s sentencing in light of the following: (a) when the Defendant, who is an adult, was in the third grade of the third grade of the middle school, was placed at a dangerous object without the age of the victim; (b) the Defendant’s mistake and the victim’s minor injury.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.